Step In To My Game

[luckyfella]

Hey kav since you are around.
Forget your TRIGGERS and PROGRESSION.

Give you a top notch money making tip.

No cryptic clues or hints.

Watch steve's 150% edge video.

[luckyfella]

 This is my OPINION !!!! >> it seems that jealousy spawned from "knowing less" has taken over the boards TODAY. Thats not a rip on you RG, its an observation. Then, the newer members (myself) more or less listened, took down notes (I did) and asked a few questions. Its NOT like that today.

How that changed? I have no idea. The newer guys think they know more or the same. THEY DON'T and this bothers them. They have NO interest, waiting/learning. -------Mr J unquote

[Steve]

Yes, you are correct. I am a big idiot to make this gross stupid uneducated mistake not to watch your videos.

It's ok. Just don't let it happen again. Remember it's always best to investigate something before flapping your mouth.

Here's a 120% edge in a public group demo:

It's a very old video and poor quality (still with 2019 model huxley wheel), but I published it because it's a group demo that I did as part of a public challenge. Basically a few idiots (mostly other computer developers) said the computer had "random accuracy", so I said I'll do a public demo anyone can attend. It was part of a public challenge to refute bullshit. The edge regarding wins/losses is about 120%, but the actual edge if 1 number per peak was bet was probably closer to 200%. This is because the fewer numbers you bet, the higher the edge, but lower "profit per hour".

I've done many public demos since then. And as camcorder technology improved, so did the quality of the recordings. Keep in mind I've been doing this for a long time.

A reasonably recent recording is below. This was a live webcam demo, which is why I showed the data/time on the paper at the start.

Results are below:



I've done roughly 60 in-person demos in the past 10 or so years, and about 20 live webcam demos.

The edge mostly depends on the diamond hit configuration, which is different every time the wheel is moved. No, this doesnt mean dominant diamonds. You dont need dominant diamonds.  The edge comes from the combination of variables and physical characteristics. It can be the same every time for modern wheels in good condition, even with precise leveling equipment. So the edge typically varies between 10-150% which is a huge range, but you just get what you get. If the wheel isnt moved, then the edge doesn't change.

And MrJ's knowledge was poor, and in the end all he did was tell new members how inexperienced they were compared to him. But his own knowledge was not much better than yours.

Sorry I cant waste much more time on you. You aren't getting even the basic concepts. But again if you have a super-duper system, just go use it and make idiots of us.

[luckyfella]

Sorry I cant waste much more time on you. You aren't getting even the basic concepts. But again if you have a super-duper system, just go use it and make idiots of us.

Just ignore my harmless nonsensical posts. You shouldn't waste your time on systems board.

[luckyfella]

But again if you have a super-duper system, just go use it and make idiots of us.

Why make idiots of anyone ?
The only use is to befriend the b&m casinos.
I love the pitboss.

Seriously, I do envy you playing with such a huge edge. Certainly out of my scope.

[Tinsoldiers]

It’s a bit odd to show the edge posting videos with not considerable amount of spins. Who cares though. 

[Herby]

I am really choked up.

All the holy men are gathered here to prevent us from buying what MoneyT don’t sells. 

[Joe]

I’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.
    Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!


See? I don't have to take two different posts of yours to point out a contradiction. You contradict yourself perfectly in the same post!

To be fair to MoneyT, I think he intended odds to mean 'payouts' in the first sentence and 'probability of a win' in the second second, which obviously doesn't result in a contradiction. In the table you posted, the 2nd column is the probability implied by the payouts, which obviously isn't set in stone, unlike the payouts themselves. Precisely because the payouts are set in stone, the only way to get an edge is to improve predictive accuracy. Contrast this with sports betting where the payouts (what they call 'odds'!) can and does change. The challenge in sports betting isn't to improve accuracy but figure out what the probability of a win is and then shop around to get the best payouts relative to it.

It's all quite confusing for a newbie and would be much less so if they stuck to the terms 'payout' and 'probability' instead of 'odds', which sometimes means payouts and sometimes probability. 

[falkor2k15]

I am really choked up.

All the holy men are gathered here to prevent us from buying what MoneyT don’t sells. 

Science is also a religion ala globe earth deception, so keep promoting the globe, HG and Santa Claus to your children for as long as possible so they can continue to experience that sense of wonder well into their teens! It's very important, yo know? 

[luckyfella]

To be fair to MoneyT, I think he intended odds to mean 'payouts' in the first sentence and 'probability of a win' in the second second, which obviously doesn't result in a contradiction. In the table you posted, the 2nd column is the probability implied by the payouts, which obviously isn't set in stone, unlike the payouts themselves. Precisely because the payouts are set in stone, the only way to get an edge is to improve predictive accuracy. Contrast this with sports betting where the payouts (what they call 'odds'!) can and does change. The challenge in sports betting isn't to improve accuracy but figure out what the probability of a win is and then shop around to get the best payouts relative to it.

It's all quite confusing for a newbie and would be much less so if they stuck to the terms 'payout' and 'probability' instead of 'odds', which sometimes means payouts and sometimes probability.

Another good post for newbies to learn.

Payout, odds and probability are 3 words that are used interchangeably.

The words aside, for the system bet to win the bet must have increased accuracy of prediction.

Take for example ec red and black. In the next 10spins there are 6reds and 4blacks.

The systems bet must indicate to bet red to win. Now if we study this carefully there are more reds than blacks. This is due to variance. Therefore, it becomes a requirement that the systems bet must predict on which side the positive variance hit.

If there are 5red and 5blacks you breakeven and pay the cost of the additional zero pocket which gives you a net negative position.

So long as the roulette spins maintain an uneven count you have a chance to win. If it returns exactly balanced you lose to he.

The non-negotiable requirement for every systems method is it has to predict the outcome better than the odds.

Therefore, to say to win in roulette betting you have to improve the accuracy of prediction is redundant. It is mathematically obvious.

To win, the systems method or strategy must predict on which side the variance swings. You want to be on the correct side more often than not.

The accuracy of prediction is by extension a prediction of variance.

Note - increased accuracy of predicting variance swing is not the only math option to win.

[Steve]

It’s a bit odd to show the edge posting videos with not considerable amount of spins. Who cares though. 

When you can predict when and where the ball will fall, you need only see a few spins to understand it works. Plus my demos are typically 70 spins for the first part, then we clear the charts and re-do 70 spins. Then we compare the first 70 spins, and the second 70 spins. What are the chances that the computer keeps getting the time and place of the ball fall right, AND the two charts of 70 spins are very similar? There's more, but you get the idea.

In contrast, a system's results over 70 or 140 spins is meaningless because it has no other supporting data. Even with roulette computers, you cant look at just wins and losses. You need to carefully consider other data.

[Steve]

Therefore, to say to win in roulette betting you have to improve the accuracy of prediction is redundant. It is mathematically obvious.

Yes and you do but dont but do but dont change odds.

To win, the systems method or strategy must predict on which side the variance swings

You cant do that. Variance is variance because it's unpredictable.

You have a lot to learn. Don't go around acting like you know what you're talking about. Even less experienced people may be misled.

[luckyfella]

You cant do that. Variance is variance because it's unpredictable.

Yes, variance is LUCK !

OMG, how can I ever predict LUCK, WTF ?!?!?!

That's what caleb taught me.

How stupid can I be ?!?!?!

I've just sunk to idiotic delusional level.

No matter, this same idiotic status applies to all other systems method and strategies on forums. 😂😂😂

Steve, you just called all posters of systems forums IDIOTS !

[Steve]

That's right. You can't predict it. That's why it's called "variance", ie different from what's predicted.

How stupid can I be ?!?!?!

I'm wondering.

I've just sunk to idiotic delusional level.

You "just" did?

No matter, this same idiotic status applies to all other systems method and strategies on forums.

That's right, it does. So in a case where an AP expects an edge of 10%, there might be "variance" that gives them only an 8% edge.

You might as well stop there.

[Tinsoldiers]

There's more, but you get the idea.

I know. I myself is an AP and I don’t use computers. But that’s not my point. My point of view is what works on AP can also be used to prove systems work or not. You get the same pattern over and over for 70 spins (not just wins and losses, but same pattern) then it doesn’t have to be tested over millions of spins to prove it to be right or wrong. Money may not be stating the facts correctly and people may be claiming wrong things, but keeping a open mind around such concepts will give a productive discussion rather than leading to a slug fest which this thread has become.

The concept is you don’t have to test a million spins to prove a system wrong or right.  If you can find a system that wins on every repeat whether it happens in the first spin or 38th spin then you have a winning system. Money knows he doesn’t have it and hence he cannot prove it.

Secondly, I am not sure why someone who doesn’t worry about the money and play only occasionally has any reason not to post a system that wins. People have to work to find it - I say bullshit. It will fall in wrong hands - you kidding? Casinos will close - oh come on.  Don’t take me wrong, but I don’t think money has a system that wins. But, I am one for discussion. I am here to understand different perspectives. I want to separate whiskey from water and jointly work towards seeing how do we go further on the thread he has started. He spoke about dependencies. mick spoke in the other thread about combining two spins to give a sum result to create dependencies. These are all good ideas. It is too easy to dismiss them as fallacies and given unrelated examples around RRB getting repeated and patterns. But it is difficult to give it a serious thought, which I think we should as that is one of the purposes of the forum, without claiming you have a winning system.

This thread  is not the first, this thread will not be the last of such slugfests. Just saying.